Is the quotation by Theophilus of the original text correct? If not, why does he suggest Autolycus? Is it possible that an exclusion of the text in question was made by a copyist in order to justify an already established doctrine of the church?

If the quotation is in fact correct, is one implication thus: according to the greek word ἀλλότριος, is it legitimate to say that the quote, "whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." should be properly rendered, "whosoever looketh on a woman who belongs to another, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."?

Does if follow that Jesus here really speaks against masturbation as adultery, as is commonly assumed?

Nearly all Hebrew men at the time of Jesus' words were married, as it was considered aberrant to be single ("This is why a man is considered 'incomplete' if he is not married..." (see Jewish views on marriage)), so Jesus was almost certainly indicting married men for the sin of covetousness. Also, if He exhorts men to not look upon "a woman..." (i.e. any woman), even a married man is not at liberty to look at his own wife desirously (ἐπιθυμέω)! And so the passage makes no sense. Additionally, the traditional teaching is that Jesus is speaking about any lust (desire) whatsoever, married and single men alike, but how exactly can a single man commit adultery? And if a single man cannot commit adultery, in the context of masturbation, there is no offense committed.

The relevant passage in Theophilus' work is Ch. 13, not Ch. 3.
–
H3br3wHamm3r81Jan 24 '13 at 3:38

3

The link you provided is a truly fascinating rant and has quite a few logical fallacies. I'm posting this as a comment because it's not directly related to the text, but the logical fallacy upon which this is based is painful. The author notes that he's using the "biblical" definition of a few words, but uses Strong's. I'm not against Strong's, but I'm not going to say that it's "inspired" or the only resource available. Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
–
swasheckJan 24 '13 at 4:07

2

The plea for scholarly responses based on a knowledge of Greek should be unnecessary here, that should be all you get in the first place. If you don't, we can deal with that.
–
Caleb♦Jan 24 '13 at 12:42

Please take the time and effort to compose your posts using proper capitalization. This is a supposed to be a scholarly site with academic level content. You appeal to only wanting scholarly responses, but please make the effort yourself to make your question readable. Thank you.
–
Caleb♦Jan 24 '13 at 12:51

1

Matthew 15:19 lops sexual immorality (fornication) and adultery into the same "evil thoughts" of the heart. We therefore can come to the same conclusion as Theophilus of Antioch: all adultery is sexual immorality, but not all sexual immorality is adultery. However, we must note that any and all sexual immorality is sinful. In other words, we cannot make the FALSE conclusion that since fornication is not adultery, fornication is somehow not a sin when committed in the heart ("since Theophilus of Antioch says that ONLY adultery was in view in Matthew 5:28"). Matthew 15:19 speaks otherwise.
–
JosephJan 27 '13 at 5:21

3 Answers
3

Theophilus was the Patriarch and seventh bishop of Antioch; he died in approximately 181-185 A.D. The Greek text below is from the third book, thirteenth chapter (Book III, Ch. XIII) of his apologia (defense) to Autolycus, who himself was a Pagan friend of Theophilus. An English translation by Philip Schaff is available at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

On the last line cited, we find the phrase ἀλλοτρίας…γυναικός, which is the same phrase in Theophilus' work, but simply in a different case. Gilbert Murray, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford, translated this passage into English as,

And the gold-changer, Ares, who changeth quick for dead,

Who poiseth his scale in the striving of the spears,

Back from Troy sendeth dust, heavy dust, wet with tears,

Sendeth ashes with men's names in his urns neatly spread.

And they weep over the men, and they praise them one by one,

How this was a wise fighter, and this nobly-slain—

"Fighting to win back another's wife!"

ἀλλότριος (and its related case inflections) basically means "another's" (note the apostrophe indicating possession). Both in Agamemnon, and Theophilus' apology, the noun "man" may be rightly understood. That is to say, it could simply be understood as "another man's wife." Furthermore, in these particular texts, it would be "wife" because a wife was considered the possession of her husband (and ἀλλότριος indicates the possession by another).

Greek text

English translation

But, I say to you, "All who look at a woman in order to lust after her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Question

1) Is the quotation by Theophilus of the original text correct? (If not, why does he suggest it to Autolycus? Is it possible that an exclusion of the text in question was made by a copyist in order to justify an already established doctrine of the church?)

The text in Theophilus' apology is not a verbatim quotation of Matthew 5:28. I cannot pretend to read the mind of a man who lived nearly two millennia ago. Therefore, I cannot tell you why he did not quote Matthew 5:28 verbatim. It could be (again, I cannot be certain) that he was simply paraphrasing the verse according to his understanding. Also, he may have personally understood it regarding all women, whether married or unmarried, yet applied the scripture particularly to married women, for whatever reason.

Regarding the theory of exclusion --- sure, it could be possible that it was excluded, but highly improbable. I certainly wouldn't establish an argument based on possibilities. Possibilities are endless.

Textual Witnesses

There are multitudes of witnesses attesting to the accuracy of the Greek text as we currently possess it in the Textus Receptus of Matthew 5:28.

That is basically a direct translation of the Textus Receptus into Latin, and word-for-word of the Vulgate which Jerome wrote approximately three centuries later. There's no evidence of an equivalent to the Greek word ἀλλοτρίαν in Irenæus' text.

Justin's is a bit looser of a quotation of Matthew 5:28, but still no presence of ἀλλοτρίαν. Rather than "in his heart," he writes, "in the heart before God." No difference in meaning. Rather than the participial clause πᾶς ὁ βλέπων, he instead uses a subjunctive clause Ὃς ἂν ἐμβλέψῃ. No difference in meaning.

Question

2) If the quotation is in fact correct, is one implication thus: according to the Greek word ἀλλότριος, is it legitimate to say that the quote, "Whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart," should be properly rendered, "Whosoever looketh on a woman who belongs to another, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."?

It is doubtful that Theophilus is quoting the original source text in light of other witnesses (i.e., Irenæus, Justin Martyr) who also lived during his time. If (and again, that is extremely doubtful) the text did contain ἀλλότριος, then your interpretation would be correct.

Question

3) Does Jesus here really speak against masturbation as adultery, as is commonly assumed?

The idea of a single man/ woman masturbating about a single woman/ man being adultery does seem somewhat odd. Adultery is technically having sex with someone who is married, or someone who is married having sex with someone other than their spouse. I would say that masturbation is fornication, but adultery --- I cannot say for sure. I will defer to another member to add more biblical support for that belief.

A short answer. The Greek word translated woman is the same word translated wife. This is true in many languages, in fact English is quite unusual in having two different words for this. It is a matter of context then to determine which is which. Adultery is a function of marital defect, and so wife seems to me to be the obvious meaning here.

This is evidently a fairly poor quality quote from Matt, for whatever reason. Consequently we cannot really take it is definitive as to the original text since it is defective in so many other ways. (BTW, one has to remember that books were very rare in that time, and it is quite possible that even Church Fathers had only limited access to them.)

Finally I find no data in the Bible to support the contention that masturbation is fornication. One might argue that the accompanying thought process is, but that is a different matter. For example, if a man has a fantasy about a made up woman is that wrong?

It is further important to look at this in its immediate context. It is a series of obviously hyperbolic illustrations given by Jesus as to the need to flee from sin. Many a young man is wracked with guilt over 5:28, consumed with the literal meaning, yet does not follow through on the following two verses to pluck out the offending eye or cut off the offending hand. (It scared me to add this addendum, but let me do so anyway -- AND HE SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THROUGH)

The lesson is to recognize the hyperbole, and to understand the importance of leading a holy life, one free from sin, even going to the most extreme measures to do so.

Thankfully, we live in the days when "by grace you are saved" not be a rigid adherence to the precepts of the Mosaic law taught in the gospels.

Fraser - thanks for the answer. I've noticed a couple of good answers that you've made and this one just seems a bit different. It's not blatantly incorrect, but it's also not really up to the standards you've set for yourself or for this site. I'd recommend a bit more research and textual evidence so that you can either supplement the current answer or critically interact with it.
–
swasheckJan 28 '13 at 18:00

Thanks for the compliment @swasheck. And I also appreciate your opinion that you aren't a fan of this answer. However, you don't state any specific concerns with it so I don't really understand your concern. I have spent a considerable amount of time understanding what the Bible says about sexuality, and I think that the answer above is an important one, because there are a lot of very wrong attitudes to sexuality that come from cultural biases and not from the Bible. Nonetheless, you'll have to be more specific in your criticism for me to understand your concerns.
–
Fraser OrrJan 29 '13 at 1:39

I guess I was just hoping for more of the research and less of the results. Also, I noted that I'd like to see a bit more interaction with the texts. That's the point of hermeneutics. The distillation is nice, but belongs better in the Christianity site. The process (which you've clearly done) is appropriate for here. I share your sentiment but would just like for you to share the research too.
–
swasheckJan 29 '13 at 2:12

So the NIV committee needs to get adjusted because not only did they mistranslate but they removed words from the original.

So it so far now shows that the close(not proper but closer, we'll get to the official definition later) translation would be,

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman In Order To epithumēsai her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Now next is the words epithumēsai and γυναῖκα, here's the thing, these words were both used in The Septuagint(ancient translation of The Old Testament made around Jesus Christ time period) for Exodus 20:17, you know the verse that says,

"17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

Now here's the problem, in Exodus 20:17 The Word for Covet(ἐπιθυμήσεις) is the same word used in Matthew 5:28( ἐπιθυμῆσαι)

and The Word for wife in Exodus 20:17 Septuagint is γυναῖκα same word for woman in Matthew 5:28( γυναῖκα)

So Jesus Christ was just referring to The 10 Commandments(Exodus 20:14 and Exodus 20:17) about Adultery and Covet,

Add that with the fact that Adultery means Cheating, only has to do with Marriage, The word for woman is therefore wife,

added with The Fact that ἐπιθυμῆσαι is used After pros to making it an action(In Order To), so of all the definitions for it, " I long for, covet, lust after, set the heart upon." only covet can be the definition as that is an action, proven by Exodus 20:17

Now Exodus 20:17 in The Hebrew, The Word translated to ἐπιθυμήσεις is תַחְמֹ֖ד(chamad)

Which proven by Joel Hoffman(link --> Mean to take

Added with the fact that Exodus 20:15(The Commandment for "steal") the word for steal is ganab, which can mean kidnap, and is used for kidnap in the very next chapter of Exodus( Exodus 21:16), The Fact is the 8th Commandment Condemns Kidnap and not Stealing and the 10th Commandment Condemns Taking(Stealing) not coveting.

Whoever looks at a woman pros to should therefore mean, whoever looks at a woman with the intention of(after that would be action), whoever looks literally would be improper, looks at in order to means intention, the intention is the action, if it were about the desires(something that isn't intentional then pros to wouldn't be in the verse) if it were anything other than the definition of covet it would make no sense,

Here are examples

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a married woman with the intention of longing for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.""

Desire, sexual or otherwise isn't an action, with the intention on(in order to) would make this an action) with the intention of doing something, so whoever intends(desires) to desire makes no sense.

So here with all the Facts above and without even using Theophilus of Antioch, The Proper Translation of Matthew 5:27-28 is,

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a married woman with the intention of taking her(stealing her from the husband or cheating with her) has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Added with Theophilus who was most likely and obviously using the most correct translation, lusting after a woman is not a sin, intending to steal a woman, aka adultery is a sin, this makes sense because look at Matthew where Jesus Christ teaches us about oaths,

Oaths

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]

So obviously Jesus Christ was saying, you have heard it said(which doesn't mean He's changing The Law! He's agreeing with the law and gives us advice by saying, but I tell you don't even make oaths at all, He's not disagreeing with the law of not breaking oaths, He said don't even make them, likewise with adultery(cheating), whoever intends to cheat with a married woman has already messed up.

God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) Bless, I recommend you learn Hebrew and Greek, Greek first since easier,

Hiya. You have some very good thoughts in here but many of them are incomprehensible due to formatting. I was wondering if you would mind going through the answer and cleaning it up. Primarily, I'd like to see you stick with either Unicode Greek or the transliteration consistently throughout. Also, your πρὸς τὸ statement seems somewhat arbitrary (though correct) after a few citations of Matthew. I'd rather see a reference to Mounce or even something that says "Greek grammarians such as Mounce note ..."
–
swasheckJan 30 '13 at 22:59

3

A couple of times you wrote "God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)". I'm curious why you don't just say God or (possibly) the Trinity? We aren't a Christian site, so things like that tend to rub people the wrong way around here. By the way, have you seen our FAQ? The first few sections might help you fit in a bit better.
–
Jon Ericson♦Jan 30 '13 at 23:19

Which proven by Joel Hoffman(link --> Mean to take Was there supposed to be a link there? Even looking at the markdown source, I couldn't see one.
–
TRiGJan 31 '13 at 0:16